Understanding Volunteering:A Quantitative Analysis of Urban/Rural Differences in ParticipationAlasdair Rutherford Helen HarperUniversity of Stirling Volunteer Scotland

October, 2013

Thanks to AQMeN and Volunteer Development Scotland for funding this project. Thanks to the Scottish Government for supplying the data and matching. Thanks also to Marta Odendal, Sian O’Hare and Peter Hughes for research assistance at different stages of the project.

MotivationPublic policy

Participation across space

Develop quantitative methods capacity

The recession has focussed policy makers’ attention on the role of voluntary and civic participation in the provision of public services.

This policy shift towards a co-production agenda assumes that levels of volunteering and its distribution in all localities can meet this demand now and in the future.

One of the aims of the AQMeN project was to develop the capacity of a voluntary sector organisation to undertake analysis of quantitative data.

What is a volunteer?

Formal volunteering

Informal volunteering

Informal helping

Care for family Compulsory volunteering

FORMALITY

Volunteering ParticipationMotivations

Opportunity

Varies across space

Difference in character, not just quantity

Altruism, ‘warm glow’, increase human capital, increase social capital, involuntary

Depends on human capital, social capital, life stage, social networks

Large urban/rural differences. Usually attributed to differences in socio-economic characteristics of local populations, differences in social capitalRural volunteering is broad, with more people contributing across multiple organisations, but for few hours per week. Urban volunteering is deep, with fewer individuals working with fewer organisations but with a greater time commitment per week. Trimbell (2006)

Measuring Volunteering

There are big variations in survey estimates of voluntary participation depending on question wording.

The SHS has a reliable and consistent two-stage question, which provides a good measure of formal volunteering (within the context of an organisation, association or group).

Participation By Rurality

Large

urban ar

eas

Other urban

area

s

Small

acce

ssible

towns

Small

remote

towns

Very re

mote sm

all to

wns

Accessi

ble rural

Remote

rural

Very re

mote rural

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Data MergingDatazones

Local Area Data drawn from a variety of sources

Merge

Data zones are groups of Census output areas, covering the whole of Scotland and nested within local authority boundaries, which have populations of between 500 and 1,000 household residents. There are 6,505 data zones across Scotland.

Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics, Census data, population estimates, business data

The merge was carried out by the SHS team at the Scottish Government to preserve anonymity of respondents

Estimating Volunteering Participation

The individual’s propensity to participate will be a function of the individual, household, and local area characteristics:

We observe through survey questions a binary variable:

We can therefore estimate a binary logistic regression:

RESULTS: Volunteering ParticipationSocio-economic Characteristics

Urban/Rural

Local Area Data

Urban/Rural

Women are more likely to volunteer; little variation across the age categories; education is a significant predictor of volunteering

Participation constant for small towns, but increases with remoteness and rurality

Individuals living in areas that have higher levels of health and education are more likely to volunteer. Greater deprivation levels increase the probability of volunteering.

Rural difference is reduced but not eliminated by inclusion of local area characteristics.

RESULTS: Hours of Volunteering per MonthIndividual

Household

Local Area

Women volunteer just under 1.5 fewer hours per month; age has little effect on volunteering hours until post-retirement age; there is no significant effect of income, although individuals outside the labour market are likely to volunteer longer hours.

Having children significantly reduces the number of hours spent volunteering by around 2 hours per month.

There is no urban/rural difference even before controlling for local area characteristics. Local characteristics similarly have little effect.

Findings: Individual & Household

Individual characteristics such as gender, age, and education are somewhat important in determining volunteering participation.

Household characteristics such as relationship status and number of children also have a significant effect.

The characteristics of the neighbourhoods in which people live then have a further impact on the participation, frequency and intensity of volunteering.

Volunteering participation is significantly higher in rural Scotland than urban areas. Those in the most remote rural areas have even higher participation still. This effect is slightly reduced by controlling for local area characteristics. There is neither an urban/rural difference in the number of hours spent volunteering .

The significant difference between urban and rural areas lies in the decision to participate, rather than in the level of participation.

Are there differences in the nature of that participation?

Findings: Urban/Rural

Volunteering Activity Type by RuralityUrban/ accessible Rural/ inaccessible χ2 Test

Raising money 32% 37% ***Committee work 20% 30% ***

Office work, admin 12% 14% ***Providing advice, assistance to others 15% 18% ***

IT support 3% 3% Education, training, coaching 13% 12%

Advocacy 2% 2% Campaigning 4% 5%

Providing transport, driving 7% 9% ***Visiting, buddying, befriending people 8% 8%

Counselling 4% 4% Helping organise, run events, activities 26% 32% ***

Providing direct services 8% 11% ***Representing others 4% 5%

Managing, organising other volunteers 6% 7% Generally helping out 35% 41% ***Whatever is required 23% 32% ***

Volunteering Activity Type by RuralityUrban/ accessible Rural/ inaccessible χ2 Test

Raising money 32% 37% ***Committee work 20% 30% ***

Office work, admin 12% 14% ***Providing advice, assistance to others 15% 18% ***

IT support 3% 3% Education, training, coaching 13% 12%

Advocacy 2% 2% Campaigning 4% 5%

Providing transport, driving 7% 9% ***Visiting, buddying, befriending people 8% 8%

Counselling 4% 4% Helping organise, run events, activities 26% 32% ***

Providing direct services 8% 11% ***Representing others 4% 5%

Managing, organising other volunteers 6% 7% Generally helping out 35% 41% ***Whatever is required 23% 32% ***

Volunteering Activity Type by RuralityUrban/ accessible Rural/ inaccessible χ2 Test

Raising money 32% 37% ***Committee work 20% 30% ***

Office work, admin 12% 14% ***Providing advice, assistance to others 15% 18% ***

IT support 3% 3% Education, training, coaching 13% 12%

Advocacy 2% 2% Campaigning 4% 5%

Providing transport, driving 7% 9% ***Visiting, buddying, befriending people 8% 8%

Counselling 4% 4% Helping organise, run events, activities 26% 32% ***

Providing direct services 8% 11% ***Representing others 4% 5%

Managing, organising other volunteers 6% 7% Generally helping out 35% 41% ***Whatever is required 23% 32% ***

Policy ImplicationsPotential for “big society”

Caution …

Social capital

These findings suggest that there may be potential for increased voluntary activity in urban areas, as individuals with similar characteristics are currently less likely to participate if they live in a more urban area.

However, there are some cautionary notes. The potential lies in increased individual participation rather than increased intensity by existing volunteers. The demand side is important: namely, the types of activities and opportunities that are offered by organisations.

Social capital is still an important determinant of volunteering supply and is relatively persistent. Despite the great policy interest in volunteering over the past thirty years, volunteering participation has held fairly steady.

ConclusionsRole for policy?

One the one hand,

On the other,

Policies to increase voluntary participation in public service provision are likely to be more successful in some areas than others.

Communities with existing higher levels of participations may be better equipped to absorb additional voluntary roles, as the social connections and support structures are already in place.

These communities may already be at capacity, with available volunteers unable to take on any more responsibility for public service provision.

More urban communities may have untapped potential but weaker networks, while more rural communities have better connections but risk overloading individuals.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING …

Alasdair Rutherford Helen HarperUniversity of Stirling Volunteer Development Scotland

Describing Volunteering

2006 2007 2008 20090%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

MaleFemale

Volunteering Organisation Type by Rurality

Urban/ accessibleRural/

inaccessible χ2 TestChild related with school 20.8% 22.0%

Child related outside school 18.9% 22.4% ***Adult education 4.1% 4.7%

Sport, exercise 12.4% 13.0%Religion 18.6% 18.6%Politics 2.2% 2.6%Elderly 13.8% 18.2% ***

Health, disability & social welfare 18.9% 16.8% *Health & safety, first aid 3.0% 4.5% ***

Environment, animals 6.2% 9.3% ***Justice, human rights 2.9% 3.1%

Local community, neighbourhood 14.2% 28.7% ***Citizens groups 3.6% 4.8% *

Hobbies, recreation, arts 14.3% 18.3% ***Trade union 2.6% 1.6% **

No. Observations 4,499 1,170

Volunteering Organisation Type by Rurality

Urban/ accessibleRural/

inaccessible χ2 TestChild related with school 20.8% 22.0%

Child related outside school 18.9% 22.4% ***Adult education 4.1% 4.7%

Sport, exercise 12.4% 13.0%Religion 18.6% 18.6%Politics 2.2% 2.6%Elderly 13.8% 18.2% ***

Health, disability & social welfare 18.9% 16.8% *Health & safety, first aid 3.0% 4.5% ***

Environment, animals 6.2% 9.3% ***Justice, human rights 2.9% 3.1%

Local community, neighbourhood 14.2% 28.7% ***Citizens groups 3.6% 4.8% *

Hobbies, recreation, arts 14.3% 18.3% ***Trade union 2.6% 1.6% **

No. Observations 4,499 1,170

Volunteering Organisation Type by Rurality

Urban/ accessibleRural/

inaccessible χ2 TestChild related with school 20.8% 22.0%

Child related outside school 18.9% 22.4% ***Adult education 4.1% 4.7%

Sport, exercise 12.4% 13.0%Religion 18.6% 18.6%Politics 2.2% 2.6%Elderly 13.8% 18.2% ***

Health, disability & social welfare 18.9% 16.8% *Health & safety, first aid 3.0% 4.5% ***

Environment, animals 6.2% 9.3% ***Justice, human rights 2.9% 3.1%

Local community, neighbourhood 14.2% 28.7% ***Citizens groups 3.6% 4.8% *

Hobbies, recreation, arts 14.3% 18.3% ***Trade union 2.6% 1.6% **

No. Observations 4,499 1,170

Volunteering Participation Model 1: Individual Data Model 2: Matched local area

female 1.158 1.153 (0.0539)*** (0.0539)***

Area: Urban Reference ReferenceArea: Other urban 1.020 1.035

(0.0559) (0.0655)Area: Small accessible towns 1.136 1.144

(0.0886) (0.0962)Area: Small remote towns 1.226 1.189

(0.158) (0.156)Area: Very remote small towns 1.742 1.711

(0.268)*** (0.276)***Area: Accessible rural 1.298 1.155

(0.0887)*** (0.0988)*Area: Remote rural 2.050 1.718

(0.226)*** (0.218)***Area: Very remote rural 2.333 1.803

(0.231)*** (0.228)***SIMD Rank (Deciles) - x

Local population demographics - xBusinesses: Education, Health or Social Work (%) - x

Businesses: Community, social and personal services (%) - xN 16,797‡ 16,797‡

Volunteering Hours Model 1: Individual Data† Model 2: Matched local area †

female -1.392 -1.377 (0.695)** (0.684)**

Area: Urban Reference ReferenceArea: Other urban -0.669 -0.158

(0.777) (0.808)Area: Small accessible towns 1.096 1.578

(1.490) (1.478)Area: Small remote towns 2.697 3.053

(2.133) (2.168)Area: Very remote small towns 0.0726 -0.0546

(1.726) (1.838)Area: Accessible rural -1.075 -0.829

(0.924) (1.141)Area: Remote rural -0.382 -0.578

(1.327) (1.589)Area: Very remote rural 1.261 0.403

(1.190) (1.468)SIMD Rank (Deciles) - x

Local population demographics - xBusinesses: Education, Health or Social Work (%) - x

Businesses: Community, social and personal services (%) - xConstant 9.615 7.671

(3.722)*** (5.712)N 3,588‡ 3,588‡

R2 0.066 0.072

First stage

Respondents are first asked:“The next set of questions are about the kinds of things that some people do to give up their time, without pay, to help people or for the benefit of their neighbourhood or a wider area, and either through organisations or acting as individuals.Thinking back over the last 12 months, have you given up any time to help any clubs, charities, campaigns or organisations. I mean in an unpaid capacity”

Scottish Household Survey Questionnaire

Second Stage

Respondents who answer ‘no’ are then presented with a list of types of organisation or group, and are asked:“We often find that people forget about some of the things they have done because they only do them occasionally or wouldn't normally think of it as helping people or their community. Have you undertaken any work or activities on a voluntary basis for any of these types of groups or organisations at any time in the past 12 months?

Code all that apply. Probe fully. Any others? Any others?”

Scottish Household Survey Questionnaire